What Texas Employers Must Know When Considering Remote Work for Employees
At the outset employees working remotely may seem cost efficient. But failure to address the details of how to correctly implement remote work can result in unexpected business costs in days ahead.
May 18, 2022 at 04:30 PM
6 minute read
By now, Texas businesses have likely established policies governing remote work such as: hours of availability, sufficient technology and safe workspaces, no off the clock work, and clear expectations on whether additional duties (childcare, elder care, moonlighting) are allowed. But employers must also consider the small but significant issues to avoid running afoul of state and federal laws to safeguard from liability.
Employers must consider who provides the items required to make remote work possible. Is the company or the employee paying for internet, phone, toner cartridges and other traditional office items? The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally does not require an employer reimburse those expenses, but it does require non-exempt employees be paid at least minimum wage ($7.25), and overtime where applicable. "Employers are required to pay for all hours worked, including work not requested but suffered or permitted, including work from home." See FAB 2020-5 (dol.gov) and 29 C.F.R. Section 785.11-12. If work expenses result in an employee receiving less than minimum wage, an employer could run afoul of the FLSA. See COVID-19 and the Fair Labor Standards Act Questions and Answers | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov) Also, if an employee moves away from Texas, it is important to assess that state's law on expenses. Many states require employer reimbursements, especially when remote work is mandatory, including: California, Illinois, and Montana.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Without It, Some May Have Left': Slaughters Associate Illuminates Firm's Reduced Hours Policy
6 minute readWith Flexibility and Changing Norms, 'Side Hustles' May Be on the Rise in Big Law
5 minute readCould 'Core Hours' Help Firms Balance Mandates With Flexibility? Few Are Willing to Try
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's DOJ Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block $14B Tech Merger
- 2'No Retributive Actions,' Kash Patel Pledges if Confirmed to FBI
- 3Justice Department Sues to Block $14 Billion Juniper Buyout by Hewlett Packard Enterprise
- 4A Texas Lawyer Just Rose to the Trump Administration
- 5Hogan Lovells Hires White & Case Corporate and Finance Team in Italy
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250